The Cliffs of Insanity: To Boycott or Not to Boycott Orson Scott Card's Superman

Well, Orson Scott Card is not going to like this! Image from Batwoman #17, written by J.H. Williams III and W. Haden Blackman, art by Williams. copyright DC Comics

In this week’s adventures scaling the cliffs of insanity, I expand my collection of Jim Gordon figures, revisit an old DC hero from the Justice League Detroit era (yes, that was a thing), and realize my son is on the same wavelength about the need for heroes in literature.

This article has been reproduced in a new format and may be missing content or contain faulty links. Contact wiredlabs@wired.com to report an issue.

But first, the issues surrounding Orson Scott Card’s writing a Superman story for the new Adventures of Superman for DC Comics. In short, Orson Scott Card puts his considerable funds and efforts toward an organization that actively works against gay rights and he will be writing a Superman story to be released both digitally and in print. GeekDad Jason Cranford Teague had a great post this week on the controversy, including links to several comic book shops that will not be stocking the print issue because of Card’s involvement.

A proposed boycott of Card’s work is fine by me. But a more targeted boycott may be in order to make one’s opinion known. For example, readers could buy Batwoman #17 to support LGBT rights. Or they could choose to download digitally only the parts of the new Superman series that don’t have Card’s story. If there’s a major sales difference between Jeff Parker and Chris Samnee’s story and Card’s, that will send a strong message. It’s only the print edition that will collect the stories in one place.

For me, this isn’t about a difference in a political opinion. It’s not even about free speech, as Card just doesn’t hold particular views, he works actively to deny citizens of the United States the same rights as everyone else.

It’s about the right thing to do.

As President Kennedy said about the civil rights movement, “We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution. The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities.”

This is about making voices heard regarding a hateful (though talented) bigot who was assigned to write the superhero who best represents truth, justice and the American Way.

Is this a slippery slope that may led to people being denied jobs because of their political views? As I said above, I don’t consider this a political issue. If Card was working to actively deny minorities equal rights, would it be a good idea to have him write Superman?

Free speech is about the government imposing censorship. It’s not about a right to be employed at any job you wish, regardless of political views or otherwise. And it’s also a peril of speaking out that there can be blowback from it. I’m sure after my Audi post that Audi isn’t going to hire me to work in their advertising department. I’m fairly sure my non-political criticism of DC Comics over the years is going to cost me any chance to write a comic for them. That’s the breaks for being a person with a platform who speaks out about issues. And that’s just for opinions that might cost jobs–not for being a bigot.

Trending? I Hope So!

As you can see from the above image, DC Comics does have a LGBT-friendly book in its lineup: Batwoman. Kate (Batwoman) Kane, left the military because of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Kate is in love with a female police officer, Maggie Sawyer, who was a Metropolis police officer in Superman: The Animated Series. This panel happens after Kate and Maggie fought off and defeated an army of gods and assorted demons.

This is the second week in a row I’ve featured a comic panel with a lesbian kiss. It’s fairly unusual to see any lesbian kiss in mainstream superhero comics, so that two separate comics from two different companies featured them two weeks in a row is noteworthy and good to see. Mainstream comics in general feature a lot of white male characters, somewhat lesser female characters, and even fewer minority or LGBT characters. Ideally, the Marvel and DC universes should reflect more of the current reality of America, not the one that existed at the time many of these heroes were created.

I wonder if the trend will continue but, sadly, there is a lack of lesbian or bisexual characters in Marvel and DC books that makes it unlikely. Fearless Defenders, which has Valkyrie and her archeologist admirer also has Misty Knight, who might be bisexual depending on the writer. But that’s about it, unless the X-Men’s Karma is around. And DC had Thunder and Grace, Scandal Savage and Knockout and Liana, Renee (The Question) Montoya but none of these character has appeared yet in their rebooted universe.

Oh, and the Amazons are all stone (or is it snakes this time?).

Vibe II: Electric Bugaloo!

The new Vibe, from the cover of his first issue. Copyright DC Comics

Originally, Vibe was a character in the much-criticized but fondly remembered (by me) Detroit era of DC’s Justice League. That was a team led by Aquaman which featured secondary and new characters. Vibe was a break-dancing street kid whose language went over the line of racial insensitivity into being offensive. He was killed off some time later. Likely few mourned but I missed him somewhat because of his sunny nature and his need for fun.

When I heard he was being brought back as part of the rebooted DC Universe, I was excited, and picked up the first issue of his solo series this week. The offensive elements were gone, a big plus, and Vibe was given a nice new explanation for his vibration abilities. Yet I won’t be picking up the second issue. It’s more a matter of taste than bad writing, as Geoff Johns wrote it well. But it all seemed so predictable to me. I could guess what would happen from the very first papers and nothing in the book surprised me, as it all played out that way.

I’m also a bit sick of secret government “any means to the right end,” agencies. That plot is played out for me. I’ve seen it too much. And extra minus points for including skinny Amanda Waller. There’s no reason to have de-aged and sexed-up Amanda Waller!

I buy most of my comics via mail order but I had occasion to be in a nice local shop last weekend, saw this Jim Gordon chess piece and couldn’t resist at the price of $14.99. The entire DC Chess Set is available or the pieces are sold separately.

GeekMom Synchronicity of the Week!

Last week, I talked about the current tendency at DC and Marvel of writing people with superpowers rather than heroes who have superpowers. At the same time, my eldest son was putting together a speech for his high school class and…it oddly had the same theme. So I present his essay, which I think is probably more succinct than mine. (For those about to ask, yes, I let him watch Breaking Bad and Dexter, starting when he was sixteen.)

Do you know what really burns my bagel? As a writer, it aggravates me when other writers fail to grasp a concept of right vs wrong when a kindergartner would know better. I’m referring to when writers craft a story that has no idea of what’s right and what’s wrong. People do bad things in real life all the time, and they are generally seen as what they are: bad things. In stories, if a writer’s careless enough, they can confuse bad deeds with good deeds. For example, say some stranger breaks into your house and steals some stuff that you desperately need in order for him to save some girl who has clearly friend zoned him anyway. You’d consider him a bad person, right? But that’s not what happens in the Legend of Zelda series. Link, the hero, just takes what he wants, even if its just a bunch of useless garbage or more rupees (currency) than he can hold from the peasants of the land. Link may have saved the world, but he wasn’t much of a hero while he did it.

By now you’ve noticed that I’m over analyzing a video game with a cookie cutter story. But what if there were examples of this that were multi-billion dollar franchises that have swept the world by storm? Well, there are, because Twilight exists. In the first book, Edward confesses to Bella that he’s killed people during his life. She shrugs it off. Does Edward feel sorry he used to treat people like happy meals with legs? Probably. Does he ever pay for it? Does he ever go to jail or apologize to the loved ones of the deceased he ate? Does he atone for his crimes in any way? Most importantly, does the author even say that this is wrong and that Edward is a terrible monster who does not deserve the happy ending he receives? No, because Stephanie Meyer forgets that killing people is bad.

Bella Swan is not much better. She gets an entire war started because she won’t break up with her boyfriend, constantly puts everyone else in danger for her own selfish needs, and gets away with it. Stephanie Meyer writes the story like two heroes who get what they deserve, not like two selfish brats that get away with a bunch of crap because good things happen to bad people.

These kinds of stories don’t seem to understand consequences. For contrast to Twilight, look to Angel, a reformed vampire from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. He used to be a terrible evil upon the world, but was cursed with having his soul returned to him, and had to face the horror he committed. When he gets his own spin-off show, one of the biggest themes of it was redemption, and making up for past wrongs. Angel constantly tries to make up for what he did wrong, and when he acts selfish or tries to be happy, he normally finds it snatched away from him. It shows that people should not do bad things unless they are prepared for the consequences.

Another character from Buffy, Faith, also ends up having to make amends for her actions. She killed a man, and realizes she has to go jail to redeem herself. Even when she breaks out a couple seasons later, the show acknowledges this is not the right thing to do, but a necessary evil because they need her help. That kind of sophisticated morality is what makes a story something that shows an example of how life works sometimes, and does not say that it is ok to avoid owning up to your actions.

Now don’t get me wrong, bad guys are allowed to have happy endings. These things just need to be portrayed as such, because people get away with awful things all the time. That’s how the world works. Take Walter White from AMC’s Breaking Bad. He’s a drug dealer who does all these awful things for his family’s sake, even though there were other ways to get the money, despite the fact that they hurt his pride. The show portrays this as what it is, a dangerous man who destroys everyone around him because of his pride and mental instability in reaction to his terminal illness. He sees himself as doing the right thing, but what’s important is that the show does not say dealing meth to put your kids through college is ok. Writers can go a long way if they all had the moral compass even a child who hasn’t advanced to a reading level beyond Magic Tree House normally has.

If an issue is morally ambiguous, that’s fine too. They just have to illustrate it as such. Take a look at the show Dexter. Its about a serial killer who supposedly kills only other killers. The show tells us this is a bad thing many times, but also shows the good things that can come from it, like the lives Dexter saves by taking out awful people. When a writer goes into that sort of thing, they have to be skilled enough to tell both sides of the issue, so that the viewers can make up their own minds.

If anyone listening to this is ever going to write a story, please keep in mind what’s right and what’s wrong. Its not a hard thing to do. The fact that so many critically acclaimed stories can get something this simple wrong both baffles and enrages me to what is possibly an unreasonable degree. See what I did there? I stated what I did, but did not tell the audience it was right or wrong, but merely posed the question of what’s right or wrong. Its not hard authors, please take the hint. Because people don’t like for others to ass

Here’s The Thing With Ad Blockers

We get it: Ads aren’t what you’re here for. But ads help us keep the lights on. So, add us to your ad blocker’s whitelist or pay $1 per week for an ad-free version of WIRED. Either way, you are supporting our journalism. We’d really appreciate it.